Microsoft will likely skip a second Windows 7 service pack

Users will have to rely on monthly updates until Redmond stops supporting the OS.

In a break with traditional release schedules, Microsoft will probably not issue a second Windows 7 Service Pack, according to The Register. The Service Pack bundles the company's monthly updates and also usually provides additional security and performance updates. It's meant to help IT managers (and many home consumers as well) install fixes in one fell swoop, without having to keep tabs manually on monthly updates.

Sources "close to Microsoft's sustained engineering team," which builds and releases service packs, told The Register Microsoft has not yet begun preparing a second Service Pack. With Windows 8 about to hit the general public this week, the timeline for a practical Windows 7 Service Pack release is closing. The likelihood of a second update bundle has become very small.

Windows Vista waited two years before it was given SP2, and Windows XP waited three years for its second Service Pack. Windows 7 is now coming to the close of its third year. Customers are nearing the end of Microsoft's support of Service Pack 1 (which ends in 2013), and support for the operating system as a whole (which ends in 2015, or 2020 for those with extended support).

Ultimately, this may be seen either as a bid to force enterprise users onto Windows 8 more quickly, or simply as a prioritization of engineering resources. After all, why release a major update pack if many customers seem reasonably satisfied with the fixes of SP1? Whatever the case may be, customers shouldn't get their hopes up for a second bundle of updates.

The second Windws XP service pack involved major new function. As far as I know, Microsoft never has provided any kind of description of real value in the first Windows 7 service pack. What it did have was a bug that caused it not to work on my system and forced be to reinstall Windows 7 from scratch. There is no need for new function on Windows 7. No more service packs is good news.The real question mark is how Microsoft is going to try to build a user base for Windows RT applications and the Windows store. The typical pattern in the past would have been to one way or another port the required function back onto older systems. My guess is that they have been too occupied by getting Windows 8 to at least the minimum level of quality needed for a launch to worry much about anything else. So it is hard to predict what they will do in the likely circumstance that they are not happy with the number of users they have for Windows RT and the Microsoft store.

If there is not a windows 9, they will have to pay me (and a lot of people) to windows 8. I like my aero thakyouverymuch.

Every IT I know is on the same track.

I seriously don't see the logic behind this. My department already started rolling out windows 8. And so far so good. Just head to Neowin and check their review, while we wait Ars's review. There are significant improvements in terms of speed...

One thing to note is that entering the extended support phase still means at least security updates for everybody, not just paid support customers. The wording of the article makes it sound like you're cut off entirely if you aren't paying in 2015, which isn't quite the case.

And if this ends up being true, Microsoft will be in for rude awakening. Considering most companies have either just started or just completed their transition to Windows 7, all they risk doing is really pissing off whoever isn't yet pissed at them. It won't likely gain more converts to Windows 8. Even if this is true, competent IT departments are able to roll their own update packages as they see fit. This isn't really going to matter much at all.

My own experience suggests that corporations like to skip every other Windows, and the general trend seems to have been NT4 to XP to 7. That would suggest that Windows 9 better be ready and hardened before 7s support dies. Adopting every single version of Windows would be a corporate nightmare. I'm still waiting for my Windows 7 / Office 2010 upgrade at work, if that tells you anything about adoption speeds at a medium-size corporations.

This presupposes that Win8 is going to act as a replacement for Win7. I don't know if that is Microsoft's intention or not, but that's not going to happen. It's a tablet OS, its blatantly not designed for desktop use, so if MS tries to pretend that it somehow is, they'll basically end up with a response much worse than Vista. Possibly on par with Win ME. If they just accept Win8 for what it is, then releasing Win7 SP2 in a year or two would be normal and expected behavior, as Win7 is still the current OS for desktops.

I think mostly this is a case of a poor choice of name. They should have just called it, say, Win XT and Win RT, instead of Win 8 and Win RT.

My own experience suggests that corporations like to skip every other Windows, and the general trend seems to have been NT4 to XP to 7. That would suggest that Windows 9 better be ready and hardened before 7s support dies. Adopting every single version of Windows would be a corporate nightmare. I'm still waiting for my Windows 7 / Office 2010 upgrade at work, if that tells you anything about adoption speeds at a medium-size corporations.

Thats because the bigger the organization, the more of a pain in the ass it is. That, and Microsoft tends to release their OS's in a tick-tock fashion. Corporations don't like to waste their time on largely new/experimental operating systems. Rather they either wait until the next release that cleans up and optimizes. That, and they like to wait until the first service pack. So in other words, Windows 8 is going to have low adoption, and that will likely continue until Win 9 SP1 is released. For larger corporations, it can take several years to evaluate, prepare for, and initiate a transition to a new OS. They don't like to do so without good reason, and they don't like to do it often.SInce many were stuck on XP during the Vista disaster, I expect the majority will be on Windows 7 for some time. Thats just the way the clock tick-tocks...

If there is not a windows 9, they will have to pay me (and a lot of people) to windows 8. I like my aero thakyouverymuch.

Every IT I know is on the same track.

I seriously don't see the logic behind this. My department already started rolling out windows 8. And so far so good. Just head to Neowin and check their review, while we wait Ars's review. There are significant improvements in terms of speed...

We all agree that under the hood there are advantages, but nothing worth writing home. Security would be the first class citizen, but I am willing to sacrifice it for usability. The kind of work we do calls for a multitude of apps and windows running at one screen, and 8 is not playing sport on that front. If ms wants to tout fullscreen, one app as the best thing, they're insane. If windows 9 follows that trend I will just move along to the unix like world full time.

I'd like to see periodic update rollups until the end of the support lifecycle. Restoring systems and reinstalling all of the updates gets to be a lengthier process by the month.

this x infinity. I really wish MS would figure out how to do update rollups/combo updates like Apple does for OS X. I don't do it often, but when I have to re-install Windows 7 from an original retail DVD, it's a pain in the ass running Windows Update eight fucking times before everything's up to date.

Windows 7 is by far the best desktop operating system Microsoft has ever released. 8 is to 7 as Vista is to XP. Unless they substantially shorten their release timeline and recover some credibility with 9 there will still be tons of people and organizations using 7 in seven to eight years. The world is most likely going to hold on 7 the same way it did (is still doing) XP. There will be massive backlash against any attempts at limiting its lifetime or forcing upgrades.

Perhaps they stated this because Windows 7 isn't in great need of one? Windows XP and Vista certainly had larger issues than 7 in my experiences.

There are those that would say Windows 7 was the best service pack for Vista.

I don't get why service packs seem so difficult to produce, or why there's always a to-and-fro with enterprise users over whether one is desired. Surely a service pack every year (combining all previous updates) would be a good and practical thing. Just don't install it if you don't want to, and use Windows Update or WSUS to install just the updates you want.

XP SP3 came out more than a year after the release of Vista. The Register can be fun to read (sort of a tech gossip rag), but it's foolish given their track record to actually rely on them for anything approaching accuracy. Win 7 has years of support left in it (out to 2020 if I recall correctly.) While there are no sure things, I tend to think it more likely than not that there will be another service pack roll-up for Win 7, i.e. an SP2.

I'd like to see periodic update rollups until the end of the support lifecycle. Restoring systems and reinstalling all of the updates gets to be a lengthier process by the month.

So...you're not working from a system image then? If you're restoring or deploying from a standard system image, there is no reason that system image can't already have all the updates in it. You just have to do it.

On the one hand, Windows 7 doesn't really need another service pack. The first one had almost nothing significant as far as feature enhancements go. Another update roll-up is necessary, and will happen eventually I'm sure.

On the other hand, the user interface for Windows 8 is quite awful. I can't imagine why a person would want it unless they have one of those miniature half-computers... tablets I believe they're called. They should cherish 7 as if it were Windows XP, and probably should and will apologize for 8 when they file their Q4 earnings.

You know I can see this happening. I suspect Microsoft will try be like Apple and make its users upgrade more frequently. Trouble is Microsoft has a lot of Enterprise business and I really doubt Microsoft will not do something to maintain a long support life for Windows 7. Maybe it won't get a lot of real improvements. That's basically what Apple does with OS X. But I know Microsoft will most certainly keep Windows 7 going in security updates for a while. Actually my belief system in regards to operating systems. Is that I do not upgrade a current PC's or Mac's OS beyond what it came with. Get a new OS when you buy a new PC or Mac. Save yourself some problems.

I'd like to see periodic update rollups until the end of the support lifecycle. Restoring systems and reinstalling all of the updates gets to be a lengthier process by the month.

this x infinity. I really wish MS would figure out how to do update rollups/combo updates like Apple does for OS X. I don't do it often, but when I have to re-install Windows 7 from an original retail DVD, it's a pain in the ass running Windows Update eight fucking times before everything's up to date.

MS has figured it out, as has everyone that maintains Windows-based system in IT. Think "standard system image"/WIM

As far as end users at the retail level....think "system image" again. If you're restoring a system, how are you not doing it with a system image? And if you are using a system image, why isn't that image up to date? The tools are there. It's up to you to use them.

That is seriously funny because it's so (tragically) true. I'd really like an SP2 to avoid that scenario AND get backported treats like native USB 3 drivers.

That's why I read the Register article earlier today after seeing it linked on /. One thing that immediately jumped out, happily, is their lack of credible sources. They are quoting, get this, "Sources close to Microsoft's sustained engineering team...have told The Register there are no plans for a second Windows 7 SP". When they did ask a credible source, they got stoned: "Asked to comment, Microsoft said it didn’t have anything to say about Windows 7 SP2."